Talk:White people/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Chile

The WP:DATED problem introduced by this unexplained edit caught my eye. Leaving that aside, I quickly noticed that this cited supporting source does not mention a figure of 52.7%, and seems to be discussing Latin America as a whole rather than specifics of Chile. This content re 52.7% was initially added in this January 2009 edit and, as I don't read Spanish and I'm not an expert on population ethnicities in Chile, I haven't done any edits re this. I do want to raise a concern here, though. I also want to raise a concern that the Chile section here appears to contradict the Demographics of Chile article, contrary to WP:SS guidelines. I thought about placing {{contradict other}} hatnotes in both articles to draw wider attention to this, but haven't done that either. Could someone who knows something about this please take a look at this? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

flagged gobbledygook in the lede

The entire flagged second ¶ should be removed and a subordinate clause, or sentence added to first to the effect that "It is composed of ethnic groups originally from Europe or Western Asia". 72.228.190.243 (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit summary

I have made a larger scale edit on the section of ‘’European-descended peoples’’ which may require clarification. Equating ‘European ancestry’ with the social definition of the “white” category (which usage is limited to a few countries of the world), and listing countries and regions according to it, especially where the “white” category is not used, is WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, there is already an article with the same topic as the subsection, Emigration from Europe. FonsScientiae (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

William T. Pink, George W. Noblit (2007), International Handbook of Urban Education, p.398., ISBN 1402051999 : "According to various dictionary definitions, a European may be someone who belongs to Europe as an inhabitant or who is born within the boundaries of the continent of Europe. It has also been used to refer to a “person of European extraction who lives outside Europe; hence a white person, especially in a country with a predominantly non-white population” (Simpson & Weiner, 1972, quoted in Coulby & Jones, 1995, p. 50)." Tobby72 (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It is still synthesis. The article's topic is "white people", not European ancestry. The term "white" has been applied through history and depending on particular society specifically from Anglo-Saxon people (Robert, 2011)(definitions) to anyone of the "Caucasian race" 12 3, to people with light skin 56, to ancestry of different geographical areas. For example, the US Census defines 'white' as "any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa."4. Through time, the term has included Native Americans and Indians, and excluded Italians, Jews, and Eastern Europeans.(Roberts, 2011)(Roediger, 1998)(Lopez, 1996)(definitions). FonsScientiae (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

A citation is needed in the One drop rule section

for the sentence "As a result of centuries of having children with white people, the majority of African Americans have European admixture, and many white people also have African ancestry."

A statement like this should cite at least one study, or include it as a quote from an expert in the field. It could obviously be verified by DNA analysis these days. It is talking about the amount of admixture, so we are not talking about socially defined defined groups. If there have been different DNA analysis studies done, they should all be listed so we can compare their results. If it is not based on DNA analysis, then this is hypothesizing. The statement that follows shows that there isn't a common consensus: "easily one-third of black people have white DNA" (maybe less that 50%). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.93.37 (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Refs added - note that "many" white people having African ancestry isn't supported by research - only a few % do, so I changed the text accordingly. Tobus2 (talk) 12:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I looked into this a bit and found a better ref which shows up to 30% of white Americans having >2% African ancestry. The original ref (23andMe) I provided said 3-4%, but has some flaws to the effect that one of their own bloggers says "this is by no means meant to represent the percent of African ancestry among those who identify themselves as being of European descent across America".[1] It assumes that anyone with >5% ancestry would know about it and thus not consider themselves "white" and it includes non-American whites in the data, both of which would skew the results lower than they should be. The new ref (Shriver 2003) made the disovery as a side-effect of a skin pigmentation study - it's methodology is much more robust but it has a much smaller sample size. Even at the lower end of the error margin it supports >10% of whites with >2% African ancestry which I think it enough to warrant use of the word "many" in the article. I have reverted the text back to it's original wording and included the Shriver ref plus a discussion of the relevant parts of it. Tobus2 (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

JAPAN???

Does Japanese are considered as white people? they placed second on the table of countries white pop. Pankoroku 3 (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point, the only other place Japan is mentioned in the page is as a "non-white" visible minority in the Canadian census so it's inclsion in the infobox does seem unwarranted. I have removed Japan from the list. Tobus2 (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Southern Italian and Irish immigrants not always considered white in US?

In a biography of Frank Sinatra, I found an interesting passage on p. 22 at the bottom. Moreover, there is a 1995 book by Noel Ignatiev titled How the Irish Became White. It appears that Americans with "Nordic" (Northern/Central European) origins or ancestry at times (to be exact, a mere century ago) considered darker "Mediterranean" types "almost black", or "half-black". (I have seen the former not-quite-white status of Italian and Irish immigrants in the US mentioned elsewhere, too; it seems to be a well-known historical fact that should be easy to source.) Precedents to this thinking are easily found for example in Thomas Huxley, who surmised that Mediterranean types (his Melanochroi) had arisen from a mixture of light-skinned Northern European types (Nordic types, his Xanthochroi) and dark-skinned Australoid types, or in Giuseppe Sergi, who considered Mediterraneans neither white nor black (negroid) but brown (though their own category, not merely a mixture of the others), and as of African origin. Nice demonstration of the flexibility of the concept "white race", surely worth working into the article. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I've seen a reference somewhere to Irish people in Mexico as also being seen as 'black' in the past - I'll see if I can track it down. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Sergi did indeed think that Meds were of African origin, but he thought Nordics were too. In this respect his model is not that dissimilar to the standard "Out of Africa" line, though it was full of oddities typical of the Early 20th century. It's also worth noting that though he thought Medterraneans were a different race from Nordics ("race" here being a model for categorising populations), he thought they were superior to those pasty-faced notherners. A lot of this stuff about various European peoples being or not being considered "white" is highly over-simplified by the proponents of so-called "whitness studies". That's because they equate the racial category "Nordic" with "white", and then conclude that the Irish, Italians etc were condidered non-white. In fact that language is very rarely used even by the most rabid-WASPS in the early twentieth century. It's a product of 1990s academic ideology. There's talk of "nordics" and "natives" (meaning Anglo-Saxons, not Amerindians). The Immigration Act of 1924 was designed to reduce southern European immigation, but the language used did not adopt a white/black binary opposition. Mexicans were often considered non-White, only the grounds that the population was highly mixed, racially (see the 1916 film The Aryan in which the plot was summarised as follows: "a white man, who, foreswearing his race, makes outlaw Mexicans his comrades and allows white women to be attacked by them."). Paul B (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy: I seem to remember reading something about that too, perhaps in the context of the Black Irish, but I'm unable to turn up anything about this one anymore. I just can't think of suitable search terms, nor the terms used in Spanish.

Paul: Are you sure that it's all a recent invention? Are you saying that the Frank Sinatra bio is completely wrong about the KKK targetting Italians too, and that Noel Ignatiev's book is about a mere myth? I find that hard to believe. Do you have any comparably reliable counter-sources for your claim? I just randomly found a claim that intermarriage between Italians and blacks was allowed at a time when interracial marriages were outlawed (with the explicit justification that Italians were likely part black based on their appearance!), but no specifics (it was on a Yahoo! Answers page, not in a book, mind you). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. What I am calling a recent invention is the reduction of these racio-cultural debates and conflicts to a binary white versus non-white opposition. I'm not saying that there was not prejudice against Italian immigrants. There was, massively. There were "nativist" publications such as The Wasp, which campaigned for the restriction on Italian imigration, and, of course, the Nordicist movement in general was linked to such attitudes and the KKK. Paul B (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

See also Definitions of whiteness in the United States#European Americans and Whiteness studies. Caucasian (in the legal sense), Nordic (a subtype of Caucasian) and white (a more informal category) are all different concepts.

Curiously, even the Finns were once considered suspicious, due to "Asian" admixture – however, while the speakers of Proto-Uralic were indeed likely East Asian/Mongoloid (like the East Uralic peoples) in view of the placement of the Pre-Proto-Uralic homeland in the Sayan/Lake Baikal area (per Häkkinen 2012, following Janhunen), the modern-day Finns are, together with the Swedes, the most Nordic-looking people anywhere (presumably because in their migrations to the west, Uralic speakers linguistically assimilated more and more Indo-European – especially Baltic, and later Germanic – groups, a process continuing into modern times in Finland). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_people&diff=557009223&oldid=556968476

I see no valid reason to remove it, and given that nobody else has objected to it over the past couple of days, I believe it is well within the parameters of acceptable content. If someone wants to beef up the descriptions accorded to Arabs, Chinese, etc, they are more than welcome to do so. Otherwise, this is an unnecessary removal of sourced content, and arguably constitutes vandalism or POV editing/IDONTLIKEIT.Evildoer187 (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed it because: 1. "However, others contend that..." There's no reason to add quotes from 2 activists on one specific group and to focus here on one specific group, but not on the others mentioned in the "among those not not considered white...", especially when some of the other groups are much larger in number and had more difficulties assimilating. THAT is POV and agenda-pushing. 2. The second one about "Middle Eastern peoples" doesn't even mention most of these groups in the whole source. Yuvn86 (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Other sources were included, not just those two. And again, if you want more detail added to the passages on other minorities, then find some sources and include it yourself. Don't delete sourced material just because others are not represented to that extent. And given my past interactions with you, I have ample reason to believe that this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 2. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

In any case, STOP reverting until consensus is reached. If you don't like the current version, discuss it here and gain consensus before you revert.Evildoer187 (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, and before I forget, Jews are defined (on Wikipedia no less) as a Semitic/Middle Eastern people.Evildoer187 (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

We don't cite Wikipedia as a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

And as for the dispute itself?Evildoer187 (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The material relating to Jews does seem somewhat excessive in the context, as does the coverage of the US in general, especially given the fact that we provide links to several other articles giving in-depth coverage. Frankly, the whole article is a rag-bag collection of questionably-sourced material, POV-pushing factoids and out-of-date 'science'. It is neither balanced, nor complete (why no mention of New Zealand for instance?). Personally, I'd be happy to see the lot deleted - but if we are stuck with it, there should at least be an attempt made to give a complex subject proper and balanced coverage, rather than leaving it as a dumping-ground for whatever the POV-pushers are currently pushing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. This is why I have asked people to add more material to the passages pertaining to other minorities, so as to balance things out somewhat. My expertise is in Jewish matters, as I am Jewish. I have no interest or concern with other minorities/people of color, so this is best left to someone else. It's a more logical approach than simply removing sourced material and replacing it with your own personal POV.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

'Precisely' what? I suggest that the coverage of the US is excessive, and you take that as a justification to add more material, and call for others to do the same? As for your assertion that you "have no interest or concern with other minorities/people of color", frankly I find it offensive - if you aren't prepared to work towards producing a balanced article, you have no business editing it at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

So? What's stopping you, or anyone else, from adding more material to those countries instead of complaining about how one is too big? I don't mess with the passages pertaining to other minorities for the same reasons I don't edit articles on painting.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this is way "undue" here. The citations do not support the assertion "that Jews are still generally excluded from whiteness." Obviously there are ambiguous cases and also unambiguously non-white Jews, but that's quite separate from the claim that Jews are "generally" excluded from whiteness. One source - which is just journalism - asserts that in Amerca "white" means "to be the beneficiary of the past 500 years of European exploration and exploitation of the rest of the world". Frankly, that's just silly. It's not a scholarly view, or even a coherent one. Paul B (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That's why I said "others argue".Evildoer187 (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

But that kind of phrasing just allows very fringe or rhetorical assertions to be given undue weight. Paul B (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed it.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You can claim to be anything you want, Evildoer, even a rabbi. If you have ideas and opinions to push, especially in this field, then maybe a message board is the place, not an encyclopedia. Yuvn86 (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

What exactly did I claim to be? From my perspective, you are the one who is POV pushing. Your editing/reverting patterns and general attitude towards me clearly indicate that there is something bothering you about what I am doing. Care to explain what it is?Evildoer187 (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, this text isn't encyclopedic. The text violates WP:NOT#ESSAY; it basically violates WP:COATRACK; it totally violates Godwin's law (I know that's not WP policy). It even rambles:

And so even as a Christian, I say continually to my Jewish brothers and sisters: don't believe the hype about your full scale assimilation and integration into the mainstream. It only takes an event or two for a certain kind of anti-Jewish, antisemitic sensibility to surface in places that you would be surprised. But I'm just thoroughly convinced that America is not the promised land for Jewish brothers and sisters. A lot of Jewish brothers say, "No, that’s not true. We finally—yeah—they said that in Alexandria. You said that in Weimar Germany."

Argumentative, off-topic (Egypt? Did Jews get regarded as not white there?), and opinion asserted as grounds for a position ("I'm thoroughly convinced"). If you could provide a concise summary without these flaws, that would be a start.--Carwil (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I have reworked the end of this paragraph - the old text was disjointed and cumbersome to read and felt like a series of hlaf-relevant add-ons to the main thrust of the paragraph (which is that the definition of 'white' is 'contested and always changing'). Also some of the refs didn't mention "white" at all, and much of the content was not mentioned in the refs, including the list of nationalities. I've tried to keep the main points of the original content (where supported by the refs) and relate them back to the rest of the paragraph. My apologies if I've stepped on anybody's POV toes. Tobus2 (talk) 06:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"Rest of Africa"

I've removed this section. I would encourage people who want to collaborate in improving it to read the beginning of the "census and social definitions" section in which it appears. Friends, Africa is not one big country; it's a continent with multiple racial dynamics, at least five colonial authorities, and some uncolonized areas, many more state languages, a major sub-Saharan/North African distinction, and a wide range of skin phenotypes. So, no to the "rest of Africa" as a regional category. If you want more of Africa in this article, start with one case and work up.

Here's the text in question, with broken in comments on problems.

Rest of Africa

Prior to the decolonisation movements of the post-World War II era, white people were represented in every part of Africa.

"Represented" is an appalling euphemism. Who are these people and how did they get there? Also, who was "white" in which place? How did these people become labeled as white, while these people became non-white? How did such definitions happen in different places?

Decolonisation during the 1960s and 1970s often resulted in the mass emigration of European-descended settlers out of Africa—especially from Algeria (1.6 million pieds-noirs in North Africa), Angola (half-million whites), Kenya, Congo, Mozambique, and Rhodesia.

Just bad writing. Decolonisation shouldn't be the subject. "European-descended settlers" is. If we want to explain their movements, great, but that should be done clearly and based on reliable sources.

Nevertheless, White Africans remain an important minority in many African states. The Sub-Saharan African country with the largest White African population is South Africa, with formerly sizable minorities in Rhodesia, Angola and Moçambique nearly extinct due to migration.

South Africa isn't in the "rest of Africa." Rhodesia doesn't exist anymore. Leaving isn't "extinction." Also, who qualifies as "white" now in the Algerian, Angolan, Kenyan, Congolese, Mozambican, Zimbabwean, and Zambian contexts? Is the term socially relevant? Are Arabs in these countries "white" or not?

Every time the article says "white" is equivalent to "of European descent," it misunderstands how "white" came to be defined in the first place, and how "white" continues to be defined differently in different places.--Carwil (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea if this is a reliable source, but this is the kind of information that I'm talking about.--Carwil (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Arab people, "ruddy" and some other terms describing skin tints (Bernard 1992)

Re this edit (and some earlier ones which I have not looked at in detail), see [2], [3], [4], [5]. The article assertions don't appear to match what the cited source has to say in these various places. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I noted the minor "Arab"/"Levantine" edit warring and so checked the source and updated it to the current version " the fairer "ruddy people" to the northeast (which included Turks, Greeks, Slavs and at times Persians)"

From the source:

• "..the Primitive Arabs who were the ruling element in the Umayyad Caliphate called themselves 'the swarthy people,' with a connotation of racial superiority, and their Persian and Turkish subjects 'the ruddy people' with a connotation of racial inferiority" (pg 18 - quoting from Study of History by Arnold Toynbee)
• "'White' - or occasionally (light) 'red' - means the Arabs, Persians, Greeks, Turks, Slavs, and other peoples to the north and to the east of the black lands. Sometimes in contrast to the white Arabs and Persians, the northern peoples are designated by terms connoting dead white, pale blue and various shades of red or ruddy." (pg 26)

To me this means "ruddy" was applied neither to Arabs nor Levantines, was only applied to Persians sometimes (the sources contradict each other) and was, among other terms, applied to Greeks, Turks, Slavs and other northerners. I've got no vested interest in this so happy to hear others interpretations, suggestions, rewordings etc.

Tobus2 (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

White are already a minority in the US in therms of newborns.

White are already a minority in the US in therms of newborns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/whites-account-for-under-half-of-births-in-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting - but contradictory. As always seems to be the case concerning US demographic issues (see Race and ethnicity in the United States Census), the article gets in a tangle because of the way 'Hispanic' is used in this context: "Non-Hispanic whites accounted for 49.6 percent of all births in the 12-month period that ended last July...". It is of course entirely possible to be both 'white' and 'Hispanic'. If this is added to the article, it must avoid making assertions not supported by the evidence - which is to say that it can't actually state that "whites are already a minority in the US in terms of newborns"... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You are right to some extent. Hispanic is an ethnicity, not a race, therefore they can be of all races. That said, 3/4 of Hispanics are of Mexican origins and Mexicans who emigrate to the US are mainly Mestizo or Amerindian. In short, most Hispanics in the US are not white. US Hispanic whites may be a minority of about 10-15 per cent. On top of that, about 20 per cent of the US population who are not Hispanic and identify as white may not be white either. In short, there are reasons to believe that the article is quite right. It is also the impression that you get if you travel the country. On the other hand, of course, if we are to classify whites just by self-identification, then the issue is very different. But in that case you can also end up with a population that is actually mixed but who consider themselves white. Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The changing face of America.

I wonder if it is not important for such an article to include the fact that according to the US Census, Whites are a minority of new borns in the country, which means Whites are increasingly a minority in the US:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/13/minorities-in-america-census_n_3432369.html

I think it is most relevant, taking into account the contribution of the US to the concept of "whiteness".

Pipo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 27 October 2013‎

I don't know why you have started another thread on this - it has already been pointed out (above - in the thread you posted in earlier) that the census doesn't actually say that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think this news is very important indeed. If you want to be picky, then you can refer to non-Hispanic whites. If you still think it is not worth elaborating on, I find it difficult to understand,even more when the article already says:

A report from the Pew Research Center in 2008 projects that by 2050, Non-Hispanic white Americans will make up 47% of the population, down from 67% projected in 2005.[133] White Americans made up nearly 90% of the population in 1950.[127]

So, this is just an update on those previous studies confirming the trend. Why is it now wrong? I do not understand, but do as you please. I do not want to offend anyone, but all this is beginning to smell like "to be in denial". Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Gallery at the Commons

Does anyone editing here care about the gallery at the commons, [6]? I think its an odd assortment. I have an idea to place images of traditionally adorned native peoples of the various european ethnicities, along with notable whites in other countries outside europe. a gallery of notable whites is probably unnecessary. If anyone else wants to try to work on it, im in no rush. I dont like it being linked from here and not being of reasonably good quality or purpose yet.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Spelling

It may not be up to the caliber of some of the other problems discussed here, but this page has at least one kind of annoying typo in it: maybe halfway through the third paragraph in the section on social definition in the United States, we find "(and the Supreme Corut agreed)". Since the page is protected, I can't fix it. User:tmager (11:24 am, 14 November 2013 (UTC))

Fixed. Tobus2 (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Regarding these edits by User:Afro-Eurasian:

Firstly, as per WP:BRD, when an edit you make is contested please leave the page as is was before your edit until you get consensus for your changes. I have again reverted to the state it was before these two contested changes and I expect you to leave it at that state until we have agreed here to do otherwise.

Regarding the "black people" link, your edit summary is "Ethiopians, though may be dark skinned, are not Negroids, so it is incorrect to link it to black people". This shows you think the Black People is equivalent to the Negroid page, which it isn't. The Black People page is devoted to various social constructs that use the term "black" to refer to a distinct social or ethnic grouping. It's not about "Negroids", it's about any population that is or has been labeled "black", so it's perfectly legitimate and helpful to link to it in this context.

Regarding the "native peoples" change, I'm ambivalent about it (although "Negroes" is a poor choice of wording) but since User:Carwil has reverted it you need to discuss a solution with him instead of just reverting with no reason. It's probably just a matter of coming up with alternative wording as I think you are both talking about the same thing.

Lastly, re the "spelling" edit summary, it's irrelevant to this discussion, but if you look at the diff[7], it's clearly a revert, not just a simple spelling change as the summary might suggest. My apologies for suggesting subterfuge if none was intended, but it was the revert I was undoing, not the difference in spelling. Tobus (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Tobus. I just think that the "White people" and modern racial hierarchies section should include "Negroes" simply because American Indians were not the only ones enslaved by the Spaniards. "The term "white race" or "white people" entered the major European languages in the later 17th century, originating with the racialization of slavery at the time, in the context of the Atlantic slave trade and enslavement of native peoples in the Spanish Empire.[citation needed]" is how it currently is, while I just added "The term "white race" or "white people" entered the major European languages in the later 17th century, originating with the racialization of slavery at the time, in the context of the Atlantic slave trade and enslavement of Negroes and Amerindians in the Spanish Empire.[citation needed]". Basically I am adding "Negroes" and rewording "native peoples" to "Amerindians". Perhaps the reference to Negro slaves does not belong in that section, and if so, I apologize for adding it. However, I do believe that "black people" should be unlinked due to the actual article of Black people being bias and does not even have an East African section. It's irrelevant to Xenophon's description of Ethiopians in my opinion. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood - the original text just said "in the context of the Atlantic Slave trade", implying "white" came about only in relation to Africans. The "and enslavement on native peoples in the Spanish Empire" was added later to include Native Americans because this was just as important in the formation of "white". The text as it stands is not meant to imply that only Native Americans were enslaved. I can see how the confusion might come about though, as the wording doesn't make it 100% clear that "Atlantic Slave trade" and "enslavement of native people" are two separate events... perhaps the word "the" before "enslavement" would suffice to separate them? It might also help if the two were sourced separately. The original ref for "Atlantic Slave trade"[8] was removed when the addition was made, the ref for the addition is the same as then next sentence (which means the current CN is unwarranted). If we add them both as well as the "the" to the sentence in question we'd get:

• The term "white race" or "white people" entered the major European languages in the later 17th century, originating with the racialization of slavery at the time, in the context of the Atlantic slave trade[10] and the enslavement of native peoples in the Spanish Empire.[11]

Does this solve the problem?

I won't respond to your criticisms of the Black people page here but I'm an editor there as well so would be happy to discuss on that talk page (or more privately on mine or your talk page) if you want to pursue those criticisms further. In regards to the issue on this page, I take your point about how "black" is used in Xenophon's statement, but still feel the "black people" page should be linked from the first occurrence of "black" in this article as the two concepts are closely related. To solve the problem I suggest we remove the link from Xenophon's statement and change the introduction to the section to "The notion of "white people" or a "white race" as a large group of populations contrasting with "black", "coloured" or non-white originates in the 17th century" with the word "black" wikilinked up there instead. I can't see any reason why "black" wasn't included in that introduction in the first place - it reads like it's deliberately trying to avoid the term.

I note that User:Carwil hasn't commented, and since he made the initial revert I'd prefer to have his input on any solution - otherwise it might just get reverted again. I've added a note on his talk page inviting him to participate.

Tobus (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I can't believe I misunderstood. Yes, adding "the" definitely helps and would resolve that issue. I don't have anything else to add to the article at the moment. And I do agree with your suggestion regarding the link. I will message you on your talk page regarding Black people and which issues I have with the article. It's not major, just a few words here and there that could be reworded. Thank you for being civil. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The "Aethiopians/Ethiopians" that Herodotus et al. wrote about were actually the peoples who inhabited ancient Aethiopia in the Upper Nile region in the present-day Sudan - see Aethiopia. Soupforone (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for my delay in responding.

On the earlier issues: I read "the Atlantic slave trade" and "the enslavement of native peoples in the Americas" as the two formative events in racializing whiteness. (Note that "the Atlantic Slave Trade" also brought people enslaved in Africa to serve in the Canary Islands and Europe. Portuguese slave raiding, and soon thereafter trading, in West Africa began in 1441.) Negroes is archaic and shouldn't be used, in my opinion, per Wikipedia:Use_modern_language.

With regards to the proposed text, it seems a bit wordy and enslavement isn't really the only issue in the Americas. How about this?

• The term "white race" or "white people" entered the major European languages in the 17th century,* in connection with new racialized practices: the Atlantic slave trade[10] and the conquest and enslavement of native peoples in the Americas.[11]

Note: the 17th century reference may have to move back based on some new sources that I will add.

--Carwil (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Tobus (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The text abouth the black race in Argentina shoud be moved to a page about the black race. This page is about the white race, and not about black, asiatic, aboriginal, neither any other race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.59.70.134 (talk) 09:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Narrative and politcal bias.

Looking at the page for "Black People" by comparison, I think this wikipedia page about "white people" can be considered what constitutes as "hate speech". What a disgusting display of accusations, negative historical relations, and indictments. Wikipedia is slowly isolating itself as a sociology-political tool rather than educational. This is shameful (and I'm of mixed race as most people are). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.244.243.211 (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

White Americans, Canadians, etc

I see that there are articles on White American, White Canadian/ European Canadian, etc. Shoudn't these titles - as well as the heading in the infobox all be in the plural? If not, then the first sentence in each must also then be in the singular, as is the case with White South African. In terms of consistency, I see that various naming styles are used, with a number of pages titled "European" and not "white". White Canadian falls in this category, but still has the issue of plural/ singular. In the case of Argentina it is even worse - Argentines of European descent. Then to crown it all, Australia has both White Australian and European Australian, with a year-old merge proposal that has not attracted any attention, bar one contribution. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

in chile the white people is 52%  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drussen2014 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC) 

In the spirit of Wiki

I have one question to ask my esteemed colleagues, do we consider "some people feel" and someone's suggestions (even if they are a professor's) as encyclopedic in nature? I am just getting into being a responsible wikipedia contributor and I think this is a good test case to get a feel for the climate.

As Bilbo Baggins commented on the dangers of getting swept away when stepping out your door, so too does the internet present such a danger. I started doing research on the Chechen War and some how got here. :) DocHellfish (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doc, I moved your posting to here as the convention is new postings are added at the bottom. On the point you raise, I am not sure what you are referring to, but if it's a verbatim quotation which is from a verifiable source then the actual words used are as much part of the context of the quote as the overall meaning intended. If you had a particular concern bring the specific thing here for review, though. As it stands, I'm inclined to put a tad more weight behind what the average academic says I don't think an ambiguous statement of a fictitious character from Middle Earth -even if he was the creation of an Oxford academic - weighs in that heavy!Tmol42 (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

An assertion that "some people feel ..." is sometimes seen on WP (see [9]). Like any assertion, it is subject to challenge (see WP:BURDEN, {{cn}}, ...). In some articles, the assertion is supported (see e.g., You can't have your cake and eat it, World Dog Show); in some articles it is not (see e.g., Place du Portage, Content processor). I've run into a few academics on WP who seemed to think that their unsupported assertions ought to be treated as gospel (and their assertions usually turned out to be solid though I'm mystified about how, a thousand edits hence, they think any reader will know which unsupported assertions to treat as gospel for that reason and which not to). Here on WP, BURDEN applies to everyone equally. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

"Unsourced categorisation of identifiable minors"

My "unsourced categorisation" is that the children are white - which they are. What is supposed to constitute proper proof that they are white? Should some sort of certificate of ethnicity be attached to the photo or something?

"Identifiable minors" As far as I'm aware, there is no rule on Wikipedia which states that a photograph of a child isn't allowed. But if you're opposed to the photo of children, then perhaps we could find a photo of a "white adult in Britain" or something? Surlyduff50 (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not permit original research in image captions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

How is the caption "White children in Britain celebrating the wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton in 2011" original research? According to the description accompanying the photo: "Schools across Lancashire held royal wedding street parties organised by Lancashire County Council's school meals service." ::The only assertion I have made in this caption is that the children are white. What is so unreasonable about this? Surlyduff50 (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not permit original research in image captions. You are applying an ethnic categorisation based on your own opinion. Why exactly do you think Wikipedia should be doing this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

"Ethnic categorisation based on your own opinion". That they're white? Is that so controversial, in an article specifically about white people? Literally all of the photos of people on this page are implying whiteness. You are deliberately being awkward, I'd say. Surlyduff50 (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You have yet to explain why you think your opinion on who is or isn't 'white' is of relevance to this encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about white people. Like it or not, white people are a thing. In an encyclopaedic article on white people, it makes sense to include a photograph or two of what mainstream society regards as "white people" - whether mainstream society is correct to categorise people by race or not. This isn't my opinion (that the children are white), this is the opinion of most people - probably including yourself! I take it you'd fight the inclusion of photographs of people such as Nelson Mandela on the "Black people" article as ardently as you are fighting this? After all, who is the average Wikipedian to "categorise" Nelson Mandela as "black"? 00:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surlyduff50 (talk • contribs)

Ethnicity and race are social constructs - things in people's heads. They are nothing but opinion. The only opinion worthy of consideration is that of the individual concerned. As for Mandela: "There can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way in which it treats its children".[10] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The idea that ethnicity and race are social constructs isn't necessarily something I would disagree with. But this sort of rhetoric has no place here, frankly. I figured the real reason you opposed my edit was because you weren't keen on the idea of racial categorisation - particularly where white people are concerned! Still, if you really weren't keen on racial categorisation, you'd be over on the "Black people" page deleting all of those photographs of 'so-called' black people, surely? There's absolutely nothing on 90% of those photo descriptions providing confirmation that the subjects are "black". The evil racist Wikipedians who put the photos there must have jumped to that conclusion themselves... Surlyduff50 (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I have a different objection to Andy's (although I agree with his points). It seems curious for an article about the concept of white people to use images of children engaged in activities that are quintessentially British. Such a choice may imply an identity between notions of "Britishness" and "whiteness" that would be both factually incorrect and morally repugnant. Furthermore, using images of children adds an additional emotive element that amplifies the undesired implication. CIreland (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC) I see now this point has already been raised above. CIreland (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I think you are both being a little over-sensitive. Most non-Wikipedia folk wouldn't find an image of children dancing around a maypole in any way "emotive". It's not racist, it's not white supremacist, it's just white people. On the article for "Black people", you will several stereotypical images (Notting Hill Carnival!) - and plenty of so-called "black people". Why should this article not also feature photographs of those that the average person would likely consider "white"? Surlyduff50 (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This issue is the equating of Britishness with whiteness - and by extension nationality with ethnicity - which is a common feature of racist propaganda. By contrast, images of Notting Hill Carnival demonstrate the opposite. CIreland (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Fine, the quintessentially British part of the photo wasn't really supposed to be the point! Any photo of an identifiably British person and I'm happy! Surlyduff50 (talk) 02:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Maypole Image

I have reverted the re-addition of a maypole image which is captioned as being of a group of white children dancing around it. There is no correlation between children playing around a maypole and the white ethnic origin, be it in 2014 or in historic times. To imply otherwise amounts to inapprporiate connotations that those of any other ethnic origin do not play around a maypole and has no place in this or any such project.Tmol42 (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't agree. A photo of white British children dancing around a maypole does not imply that only white children dance around maypoles - anymore than a photo of white Australian children waving Aussie flags on Anzac day (one of the longstanding photos in this article) implies that only white Australian children celebrate Anzac day. "I don't like it" isn't a good enough reason to revert someone's edit. Surlyduff50 (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

There also is nothing whatsoever in the description of the original image which indicates that the persons shown are 'white British'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing in the description of the photograph depicting the white Australian kids which indicates that they're white Australians - but it's reasonable enough to assume they probably are, yes? And why the quotes around "white British"? Surlyduff50 (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact that another image may be labelled improperly doesn't justify repeating the error. Adding images because we think they show something is original research - and therefore contrary to policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

So your objection to including this image is that there's no proof the children pictured in the photo are white Brits? Or do you agree with Tmol42's assertion that a photo of white children dancing around a maypole is somehow racial discrimination against children who aren't white? Surlyduff50 (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't what Tmol42 said. And I have already explained why applying captions based on guesswork is inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It's hardly "guesswork" to assert that the children are British, given that the photo was taken in an English village... Surlyduff50 (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Really? All of them? You know that how? And just how can you determine the ethnicity of children half-obscured by others, in a low-resolution image? We have no right to go around labelling minors based on nothing but our own opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

And once again Surlyduff50 you conflate Britishness with White people. Furthermore since when can it be correct to think the only people living in an English village are either from the white ethnic group or are all British. You need to rethink this contention.Tmol42 (talk) 11:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I just stumbled across this discussion and, seeing that the Australia section has a sparsity of cited sources, I thought I would mention a couple of sources which offer support in the area of migration of British children to Australia: [11], [12]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Neanderthals and skin and hair color.

Evidence for the connection of non-Africans to Neanderthals is gronwing stronger and its effect on skin and hair: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140129-neanderthal-genes-genetics-migration-africa-eurasian-science/ Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.221 (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

irrelevant. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I suspect you just do not like it, HuH. Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.221 (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that there should be some discussion of the genetic influence of Neanderthals on Europeans (the group most identified with the concept 'white people'}? The linked article is interesting, but is rather vague about specifics. Paul B (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

More relevant might be "Ancient DNA and Neanderthals". p. 5. Modern humans have other MCR1 variants that are also less active resulting in red hair and pale skin. The less active Neanderthal mutation probably also resulted in red hair and pale skin, as in modern humans. ... The specific MCR1 mutation in Neanderthals has not found in modern humans (or occurs extremely rarely in modern humans). This indicates that the two mutations for red hair and pale skin occurred independently and does not support the idea of gene flow between Neanderthals and modern humans. Pale skin may have been advantageous to Neanderthals living in Europe because of the ability to synthesize vitamin D. This may or may not have sufficient topical weight for inclusion in the article, I just mention it because it seemed relevant to this discussion here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't think the content is relevant to this article, which does not discuss the genetics of 'whiteness'. I get the impression that the OP thinks there's some sort of ideological significance to having Neanderthal DNA (that it makes one more 'primitive' or something). It's not clear. This is the kind of thing that might get picked up by proponents of melanin theory. If so, any such ideological use of these suggestions belongs in the relevant articles. The science would belong in Human hair color or Human skin color. Paul B (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This looks like a Spanish editor who has an obsession with "Nordic" inferiority and who has been knocking around for years. Paul B (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

AndyTheGrump has repeatedly reverted the insertion of a photograph [13] labelled 'White Australian children wave Australian flags during an Anzac Day parade'. The photograph has been repeated inserted by Surlyduff50. The children in the photograph are certainly white. AndyTheGrump's reason for removing the photograph is that he claims the children have not described themselves as being white and labelling them so is wrong ('ethnicity and race are social constructs ... the only opinion worthy of consideration is that of the individual concerned'). Both users are now under investigation for edit warring at WP:ANEW. In order to resolve the content situation, the consensus of the community is being sought. In case it is relevant, there are multiple other pictures on the page with similar descriptions: these might be affected by this decision. 31.49.243.63 (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This RfC clearly fails to adhere to the requirements as set out in Wikipedia:Requests for comment: specifically that the "Statement should be neutral and brief". It is neither even remotely 'neutral' nor 'brief'. Instead it goes entirely off-topic by discussing a (questionable, and rapidly closed as stale) filing at WP:ANEW - a matter of no relevance whatsoever to a legitimate RfC statement. Accordingly, I suggest that this RfC should be summarily closed as out-of-process. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It's actually plenty brief enough, just not neutral.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have read the requirements that Andy has mentioned. The RFC request is not neutral. I think we can still comment on it. In this case if the children do not identify as "white" so it would be best to leave it out of the article. I think this would also comply with WP:BLP because there is no evidence the children pictured self-identify as white. I hope my comment is helpful. Thank you. PNGWantok (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

BLP applies to specifically identifiable individuals, not aggregate, anonymous groups. We don't actually know that the children are alive at all, much less who they are. And "Self-identification" is not some rule we have to follow here with regard to images. HiLo48's argument below is more salient.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

This being about Australian kids who look "white" highlights a fundamental problem with the subject of this article. It's quite common for people who look "white" to identify as being Australian Aboriginal people. It's possible that some of the kids in the photo in question fit into that group. HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree totally with your comments User:HiLo48. It is even more pronounced in New Zealand. These children could even be Kiwi born, with some Maori ancestry, who have moved to Australia with their parents and become citizens of Australia. The photo is not a good illustration of "white people" but it is a great illustration of Australia Day. PNGWantok (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

So true. HiLo48 (talk) 04:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I somewhat reluctantly have to agree with the gist above, except as already noted with demurrers. In this instance, it's a WP:Common sense matter, because of the frequency with which European-looking Australians are, and identify as, mixed race, as pointed out by HiLo48. (That said, PNGWantok's musings are even more original research and crystal-ball supposition than the claim made for the subjects of the photo being "white".) The picture is not important enough to the article to risk WP:NOR/WP:V problems. If the photograph were of Icelandic children, I'd go the opposite way on this. While I agree that race is a social construct, it does have a genetic basis, and the facts of the gene pool in question are relevant. We would have no problem with a photo of African-American children appearing in the "black people" article, despite them almost certainly having some "white" ancestry. In the Australian case, however, some more-or-less-Euro-looking people have much more than a token amount of non-European ancestry.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Use the photo This is ridiculous, of course they are white. The Welsh did not identify themselves as Welsh for example. Do I really have to identify myself as white? More to the point, if e.g. Lewis Hamilton says he is white (he doesn't) does that mean he is white? Quite ridiculous. Op47 (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
• The Wikipedia:No original research policy says that original research "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." The caption provided in the photo source and requoted in WP's Image page says " Children wave Australian flags during an Anzac Day parade ..." The addition of the word White to the caption appears clearly to be analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Remove White It is WP:OR or WP:SYN to add white to the description and therefore should not be done. SPACKlick (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Remove White - The picture fits given the subject of the article, but my gosh - the article!! It should be at the most a few paragraphs. White people is a term, this article is a mess and goes onto be about the history of people with low levels of melanin in their skin. It looks like a catch all for all many fringe racial theories. Seriously, a lot of it reads like a propaganda pamphlet for white supremacy. I think this should be an AFD discussion not an RFC Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Remove White Ditto all. --Precision123 (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• Keep the photo the term "white" as a descriptor of racial appearance is a clear reference to skin color. These children are white. "Whiteness" is not a race, or a feeling. It is an outward recognition of appearance. This is not "original research" any more than describing a person's hair as blonde in an image. You can tell by looking at it. Please use common sense.

Common sense? On race issues? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't give a flying fig whether or not this photo is in the article but... Please let's not go down the road of saying that any description of an image is OR. There is no such rule and it would be insane for there to be one. Images are by definition "silent", so if you say that a picture is of anything at all, you are engaging in OR by this definition. We couldn't even say someone's eyes are blue, or that a carpet is red if that were the case. Requiring a written source saying that someone is smiling, or wearing a hat, when we can all see that they are, is taking to concept of OR into the realms of Alice's Adventures. If there is some reasonable dispute about the accuracy of a description, then sources are required. But only then. Paul B (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Images may be silent by (your) definition; image captions, however, are not. Here, we have a case where the caption provided in the photo source and requoted in WP's Image page says "Children ...", and a WP editor has changed that to say "White children ..." by inserting the word "White". This is WP:OR. (I would also assert that some images are not silent, but let's not open that can of worms here) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course captions are not, but you miss the point utterly. Pictures are famously worth "a thousand words" because they show more than any caption is likely to describe. That includes such matters as hair colour; wearing red trousers; the fact that those things on the legs are "trousers" in the first place; the fact that there are, say, three people; the fact that the beings depicted are people at all etc etc. Wikipedia commons has numerous images in categories defined by users who upload them, because images communicate visually and words are labels for those things. There is no rule which states that we have to have a caption written by some supposedly authoritative source to describe any aspect of an image. Paul B (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Context, as always, is king. While "those leg coverings are trousers" is usually both obvious and innocuous. However if there is a person known for wearing only body paint and them being in trousers would be notable then it does need a source, because otherwise it could just be odd looking body paint. Similarly with racial provenance many people who to a glance look white may well identify as another race. Like any other claim on Wikipedia, it's fine to make it but if it's challenged then it needs a source and with characteristics that are not wholly visual you need a source. SPACKlick (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

As I clearly stated in my opening post "If there is some reasonable dispute about the accuracy of a description, then sources are required". My point was that some commentators here are going beyond that to claim that anything that'sd not mentioned in a caption is OR. That leads us to absurdities. Paul B (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Paul B, You missed the part of my point which I would have preferred not to get into here because it is tangential to this discussion. Pictures may always be silent (I'm not convinced of that, but let's leave it aside here). Images are not always silent -- see discussion at [14] and [15] and example at [16], but please let's not defocus this discussion further by getting into that here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

What you say is irrelevant to the point I was making. Paul B (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Paul B - exactly what is your point? Please say it in clear language without weird ideas like silent photos. HiLo48 (talk) 09:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I've already stated it in very clear language. And there is nothing "weird" about the banal and obvious fact that photos are silent. A child can understand that. Paul B (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

and to that, paul barlow, all I have to say is this Jytdog (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes Paul B, one of the challenges here is that of communicating with people from all sorts of cultural and language backgrounds, some of whom may not be quite as clever as you. I'm happy to place myself in the latter category if it help progress this discussion. Did you read the post I made above at 02:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)? HiLo48 (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

OF course I read it. To repeat my point yet again, "Please let's not go down the road of saying that any description of an image is OR. There is no such rule and it would be insane for there to be one." If you read the very first words of my very first post you will see that I clearly explained that my intervention was not to defend the use of this particular picture, but to criticise those who argue that all descriptions of images should be cited. For the third time then: As I clearly stated in my opening post "If there is some reasonable dispute about the accuracy of a description, then sources are required". Paul B (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Why not replace the photo with a different one whose subjects are more unambiguously white? Several subcategories of c:Category:Ethnic groups in Australia have pictures of European Australians. For example, File:Australia Day 2014 (12153386466).jpg features several Greek Australians participating in an Australia Day parade. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consequence of Request for comments

As a consequence of the above discussion, I have removed all pictures where the subjects didn't explicitely identify as white, including those that identified as "Welsh" etc. because not all immigrants from Europe identify as white. FishDestroyer (talk) 06:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

And this WP:POINTY behaviour is the exact consequence of the silly claim that images must have text literally asserting that they represent someone "white". Perhaps the editor will now go over to the article Woman and remove all images which are not captioned with the reliably sourced assertion that they depict a woman, since there is an abstract possibility that they may "self identify" as men. Paul B (talk) 09:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

And that's a pretty pointy post. My comment about Aboriginal Australians describes a very real situation. One of our new members of parliament, Jacqui Lambie, has declared that she is Aboriginal. That means that by Australian definition she is not white. Here is an article containing her image. Thoughts? HiLo48 (talk) 10:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really following this discussion or closely following changes to this article, but I was not aware of your point asserted above that persons who declare themselves aboriginal are, under Australian law, "not white". That information is not contained in the section. If supportable, it should probably be added, along with information about the effect of being considered "not white" under Australian law. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Australian Aboriginal people call themselves "black". This is a cultural and self identification thing. Australians can declare themselves to be Aboriginal in many legal situations. HiLo48 (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not about Australian aboriginals. Please stop making this somehow about you. It is about the general issue to which I tried to draw attention above. There is nothing pointy about my post, since it responds to a real action. Paul B (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It has nothing to do with me. Have you had a look at Jacqui Lambie yet? HiLo48 (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Why should I? It's irrelevant to this section about an editor's decision to mass delete images that have nothing to do with Australian aboriginals. Paul B (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Not irrelevant. It highlights the silliness of classifying people by one very minor attribute, skin colour. All those images are problematic. HiLo48 (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

How silly is that remark? It's no more silly than classifying by anything else - size, hair colour etc. A classification is just a description. Differentiating blondes from brunettes, for example, does not in itself imply anything beyond a way to codify difference. In any case this page is about the concept that you consider to be silly. So obviously images should illustrate it. As it happens there is no contradiction between self-identifying as an Aboriginal and as white (whether or not Lambie does so, I've no idea). Your argument is completely incoherent. If you think the very concept is problematic, then having a source pointing out the obvious won't alter that alleged fact. Paul B (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You have a bit more to learn about the concept of Aboriginality in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2014

Hello, I find this article to be swayed in the direction of anti-white racism, particularly with defining "whiteness" as a social construct, whereas the page for "black people" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people) regards it as "belonging to a "black" ethnicity in their particular country, typically having a degree of Sub-Saharan African ancestry".

This is enforcing a negative bias upon the reader base of Wikipedia, a widely used site, that could sway them to hold convictions against white people simply for the color of their skin. If we are to view race as a social construct, which is not my opinion, we must uphold this for all peoples as opposed to the current system of preferential treatment for non-white groups.

Thank you for your time. EuropaLegionarii (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Semi protected edit requests are for requesting specific changes to the article (eg "please change X to Y"). Stickee (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2014

OCA2 (talk) 03:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

"This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it." AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Jack Whinery Image

As per prior RFC, images of people not self identifying as white shouldn't be identified as white people. There are plenty of images identified with the race of the people in them available to be used. SPACKlick (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2014

Hi all, I've read the post of user "EuropaLegionarii", and I agree with him, I just want to say - I don't know if I even could, since I don't visit Wiki as a registered user for like four years; but I think mentions about social construct should be replaced with something similar to mentions in the "Black people" article, and it'd look like this:

"White people is an English-language term often used in socially-based systems of racial classification or of ethnicity to describe persons who are defined as belonging to an ethnic group whithin white ethnicity (like Slavs or Germanic peoples), or who are perceived to be light-skinned relative to other racial groups."

If you see it wrong, or whatever, just answer me, I can discuss with you. HAND

78.99.55.99 (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

There might be some justification for mentioning "Europeans" in general as it somewhat parallels the global association that "black" has with sub-Saharan Africans, but I don't think it's a good idea to single out specific populations like you have with "Slavs" or "Germanic peoples".

I've just reread the "Black people" lede for myself and I think EuropaLegionarii has misrepresented it somewhat - it is quite clear that "black people" is a social construct too, perhaps one even more variously defined than "white people" is. For example, the very next sentence after his quote says "Different societies, such as Australia, Brazil, the United Kingdom, the United States and South Africa apply differing criteria regarding who is classified as "black", and these criteria have also varied over time."

If it's not clear to others from the "Black people" page that it's talking about a social construct then I would be inclined to make the "Black people" lede more like this one rather than the other way round.

Tobus (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Regions with significant populations

The table claimed that Germany had an entry for skin color - Whites - in the census. This is not so. However, migratory status is recorded. Note that migrants are not grouped by Whites and non-Whites.

I guess other entries are made up, too. -- Zz (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2015

186.106.28.218 (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC) in Chile white people is 52% no 20% and the mestizo people in chile are white phenotype

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  14:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Chilean white 53% http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.106.28.218 (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Done That link didn't work for me, but other reliable sources with the higher figure were already being used on Demographics_of_Chile and White_Latin_American#Chile Tobus (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Contradictions.

Now, with the advent of genetic research, many people and history related articles in Wiki have big contradictions. For example in the Colombia article it states: Within 100 years after the first Spanish settlement, nearly 95 percent of all Native Americans in Colombia had died.[99] Then there is reference to a genetic study that states: According to a genetic research by the University of Brasilia, Colombian genetic admixture consists in a 45.9% European, 33.8% Amerindian, and 20.3% African ancestry.[98]Even though there are always people who try to cut the cake in all pieces possible, to state both things does seem to be a clear contradiction.

This gets even more serious when one reads articles like the Puerto Rico article, stating something like Native Americans somehow disappeared, and the population is mainly European only. A recent genetic study shows that as much as 60 per cent of the people of Puerto Rico are of Native American ancestry: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20108/abstract;jsessionid=38B9FCCC76D60A38690DA7339093E849.d02t01?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+on+27+October+from+10%3A00-12%3A00+BST+%2805%3A00-07%3A00+EDT%29+for+essential+maintenance These articles are not only inaccurate, they are also weird. In other words, suspicious of racism, and with a general tendency to deny the Native American contribution. Pipo. User:76.26.48.77 (User talk:76.26.48.77) 03:03, 9 February 2014‎

There is no contradiction. 5% of a surviving population can easily give rise to a 33.8% ratio in the modern population. The survivors were the ones who developed resistance to disease. See population bottleneck. A very small number of survivors in theory could be the ancestor of 90% of the population if other lineages died out and descendents intermarried. The Puerto Rico evidence concerns having some native ancestry. One person could generate descendents in 60% of the population due to founder effect. Paul B (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

This is obviously biased towards the most liberal position you could possible take

White people are not a social construct; they are an admixture of those who descend from Cro-Magnon; Neanderthal decent of the Caucus steppe, more so than that of Denisovan descent of the Pacific Islanders. This article describes segregation, oppression, eugenics, and marginalization is a trait only for white people, like it wasn't practices by the Persians, Ottoman Empire, Byzantine empire, Khazaria, or Mongolians.

Again, I am highly offended that this page is so completely biased AGAINST whites, yet I have a feeling those who edited, will not care about the concerns of White people, for they already made up their mind to justify their own racial bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctirderp (talk • contribs) 21:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the beginning of the article reads like a very biased essay on why being white is bad and implies some of the problems that occured because of the difference in skin colour / origin of different people only occured in predominantly "white" countries, while this happened much earlier in history, all over the world. For now I edited out those things, but am happy to see them being edited back in if it is written in a much more unbiased way.

added by ASeverin (talk • contribs) 00:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, I cannot even. 181.60.185.140 (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Someone reversed my edit with the claim that sources and citations were provided, yet I cannot see a single source or citation. People, your personal views have nothing to do with this, if you can't stay unbiased, then get back into your tumblr hugboxes. Severin (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

If you cannot see a single citation for the statement that 'white people' are a social construct, I suggest you read the article again - there are many such sources (not in the lede - per WP:LEADCITE they are unnecessary). As opposed to your Cro-Magnon/Neanderthal 'admixture' claim, which is not only unsourced, but rather implausible considering that people were being ascribed to a white 'race' long before Neanderthals were even heard of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

To ASeverin: Sources dio not need to be in the lead section if they are in the article itself per WP:LEAD. To Andy: Your last sentence is rather odd. The editor is claiming that "white people" evolved as a mixture of "Cro-Magnons" and Neanderthals. Of course, the magic x-factor provided by Neanderthal admixture is the latest white-supremecist meme, but regardless of the truth or otherwise of this claim, the fact that people were called white before we knew anything about evolution has no bearing on the issue. Lions and tigers were both classified as cats before we knew about their genetic relatedness. The real issue is whether the concept "social construction" is meaningful or useful. All conceptual categories are social constructions (where does yellow end and orange begin on the spectrum? When do blondes become red-heads?). 'White' people are not a sub-species, but it legitimate to argue that the term usefully categories a geographically delimited group with distinct morphology. Paul B (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not the notion of "social construction" is "meaningful or useful" is not a kind of thing that Wikipedia should make a proclamation or judgment upon. Wikipedia is only here to report on what has been said. It is not to take a position on such matters. If the weight of the scholarship is in favor of social construction viewpoints then they should be represented as such. If not, then not. mike4ty4 (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

A simple change of this sentence, "Various social constructions of whiteness have had implications" to "Various racial classifications of whiteness have had implications" would produce a more unbiased verbiage. If white is a social construct, then it follows that black is also a social construct. But according to Wikipedia, "white" is a social construct, but "black" is a racial classification. To be ultimately unbiased, you would have to rewrite much of the content. The article on black people mentions nothing of social construction and bases the argument for racial classification solely on how persecuted they were by white people. This is part of the reason why people are seeing a bias.24.215.169.241 (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, those usages are social constructions. How these terms are applied in various regions of the world -- "white", "black", "brown", etc. is determined by social and historical forces operating within that society. And what would you propose to rewrite the content to? To give much more prominence to the OP's genetics theory? How about the phrase "social construction" be introduced into the articles on the other "race" terms? mike4ty4 (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The unmodified beginning had no words in it which claimed that discrimination phenomena were only a white thing. I'd also suggest some examination of that history a little more closely: Discrimination as a general phenomenon is as old as dirt, true. What's not as old as dirt is the idea of dividing up the human species as a great whole into a small number of large, continent-spanning groups, coming up with various (fluid and plastic) criteria for what determines membership in these, setting up pseudo-scientific theories, and then discriminating on that basis, i.e. racism. Racism is a product of the European colonial project. General discrimination, including discrimination of ethnic groups (which are not the same thing as the races of the racists -- these distinctions occur within those "race" groups), and even discrimination based on skin color, are not synonymous with racism. Racism is a very specific type of discrimination and should not be confused with other forms of discrimination. mike4ty4 (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Just WP:BOLDed both the lead on this article and on Black people to make them look more uniform. Feel free to WP:REVERT and discuss the changes. mike4ty4 (talk) 09:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Deconstruction of the term.

Obviously the term white comes with a lot of connotations, paths and explanations, but I once read a reasoning which is one of possibly many other causes for the maintenance of the term with certain social overtones. I unfortunately do not remember where I read it, but sometimes I come across statements that make me remember it. I think it was by an English writer. What are those statements? I often read in the net disproportionate comments about being white linked to being Irish-American, Scottish-American, Polish-American, and even a sizable amount of Jewish-Americans, etc. The theory goes that the social overtones of the term white were linked to the historical supremacy of several European peoples at different times in history: Greeks, Romans and therefore Italians, Spanish, Portuguese, French, English and Russians, to speak of the main imperial nations of Europe. In this context, members of ¨lesser¨ nations, and I mean by ¨lesser¨ those who were not imperial nations, and often oppressed by the former, found in the term white a blanket term to identify with and, interestingly, adhere to in the attempt to be identified with the historical deeds of the imperial nations. Of course the premise of this idea is based on racism, but I think that the term white is shrouded in strong racist connotations. What do you think about it? Have you read about the theory? Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3498:5EC0:65CD:64C2:F887:C0C4 (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement in the American section

In the American section we can read:

According to John Tehranian, among those not considered white at some points in American history have been: the Germans, Greeks, white Hispanics, Arabs, Iranians, Afghans, Irish, Italians, Jews, Slavs and Spaniards.[135]

Then I have looked for that document that you can see here: http://www.onellp.com/parts/pubs/Tehranian_Performing_Whiteness.pdf

But I cannot find it. Maybe I read too fast. Can you find it?

Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3498:5EC0:B01C:E5B5:426F:5E1D (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Why are we including a dependency/territory of the United States in our list of countries?

Puerto Rico isn't really a country, seeing as it is still USA territory (ok, a "commonwealth", same difference). Puerto Ricans are Americans. So why include it on the list of countries? That's a bit like calling Washington, D.C. a country. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 05:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is not the same as Washington DC. It has a distict and seperate jurisdiction to the US and despite the US President being the Head of State does have an independant status distict from American states. More importantly due in main to its location the ethnic origins of those designated as White People have a separate history which predates US colonialisation in 1899, and given the article's purpose its inclusion is relevant. If anything I would prefer to see the heading relating to the United States not to include any reference to Puerto Rico as it is redundant.Tmol42 (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Request to include this map

I just drew this map, it shows people of European ancestry, which may be linked to the article topic.

File:European Ancestry.PNG

Map of percentage of people with European ancestry, showing the European diaspora.Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_diaspora

Two problems:

First the percent chart in the lower right is unreadable (way to small) and when viewed at higher resolution it is too blurry to read.

Second, what is the source of the map? You give the source as the Wikipedia article European diaspora so I assume the data was from the article. I guess all I'm saying is - make it readable. Vsmith (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Addenda - The percent box in the lower left is only readable when opened at the huge (5,146 × 2,631 pixels) scale of the original file. To be usable the info in that box should be readable when opening the file from the article thumb view. Vsmith (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Map corrected with the changes proposed, thanks.Nagihuin (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyone agrees to include it somewhere in the article? Nagihuin (talk) 07:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

As per Vsmith above I have not seen any clarification of a reliable source for the data, using data from another WP article is not in itself a RS. I also think the distortion that a map based on density stats causes made worse by its size present a problem with utility and axccuracy Tmol42 (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that "white" is used in various related senses, not exclusively of "European ancestry". It may be used either more inclusively (North Africans, Arabs, etc.) or less inclusively (excluding Southern Europeans). Because en-wiki is mostly edited by US Americans (because of their sheer predominance in native-English-speaking population), there is always a risk that this article tends to be dragged in the direction of White American. But any US-specific material should really go to the US-specific page. The "European ancestry" map is certainly interesting, but perhaps more relevant to an article explicitly about Europeans, such as European people (which is of course highly pertinent to this article, so surely there can be WP:SS style overlap). --dab (𒁳) 10:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)